The recent escalation between Israel and Hezbollah represents yet another chapter in Israel’s long-standing struggle to defend its sovereignty against terrorist organizations. Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militant group operating out of Lebanon, has been launching missile attacks against Israel, putting Israeli civilians and soldiers in grave danger. In response, Israel’s military has been forced to act, targeting Hezbollah’s command posts, missile launchers, and infrastructure across Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s Relentless Aggression

Hezbollah’s missile attacks are unprovoked, aimed at civilians in an attempt to terrorize the Israeli population. Since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Hezbollah has fired thousands of rockets into northern Israel in support of Hamas, further illustrating Iran’s dangerous proxy strategy. Yet, despite Hezbollah’s aggression, there are voices on the international stage suggesting that Israel should simply endure these attacks.

Simon Tisdall of The Guardian argues that Hezbollah will stop firing missiles if a ceasefire is agreed upon between Israel and Hamas. He blames Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for blocking such deals, portraying Hezbollah’s missile attacks as contingent on Israel’s actions in Gaza. This narrative, however, ignores the basic right of a sovereign nation to protect itself. Israel’s reluctance to agree to a ceasefire while still under attack is not an indication of warmongering, but a necessity for survival. To accept Tisdall’s view is to ask Israel to stand by while rockets rain down on its people—an unacceptable demand for any nation.

Calls for U.S. Intervention

Mohamad Bazzi of the Los Angeles Times goes a step further, urging President Biden to press for an immediate ceasefire by withholding arms shipments to Israel. Bazzi claims that Hezbollah and other Iranian allies would cease their attacks if fighting in Gaza were to end. But can Israel truly trust Hezbollah or Iran? Hezbollah has repeatedly shown that it does not respect international agreements or ceasefires. It is an organization that prioritizes the destruction of Israel above all else. Cutting off military aid to Israel would not lead to peace—it would lead to an emboldened Hezbollah, eager to exploit Israeli weakness and inflict further harm.

Israel’s Fight Is Just

Critics like Ellen Ioanes of Vox suggest that Israel is engaged in a futile effort, claiming that Israel will never be able to eliminate Hezbollah, just as it has not been able to eliminate Hamas. This line of thinking is defeatist, ignoring the significant successes Israel has achieved in weakening these terrorist organizations. Rich Lowry of the New York Post rightly points out that no other country in the world would be expected to accept such blatant violations of its sovereignty. The idea that Israel should simply endure these attacks is absurd. Israel, like any other nation, has the right to defend itself and its citizens.

While Hezbollah may not be eradicated overnight, the strikes Israel has carried out will significantly degrade its capabilities. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board makes this clear: Israel’s strikes will likely weaken Hezbollah for years to come, as has been the case with Hamas. The weakening of these groups is not a symbolic gesture—it is a crucial step toward ensuring the safety of the Israeli people.

The Bigger Picture: Iran’s Role

One cannot discuss Hezbollah and Hamas without acknowledging the role of Iran, the true puppet master behind these terror groups. Iran has long sought to encircle Israel with hostile forces, using Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south. Both groups serve Iran’s broader geopolitical interests, acting as proxies to destabilize Israel and threaten regional peace. By targeting Hezbollah, Israel is not only defending its own borders but also confronting Iran’s nefarious ambitions.

The Exit Strategy

David Ignatius of The Washington Post raises a valid concern about Israel’s exit strategy. After all, no military conflict can go on indefinitely without a clear path toward resolution. For Israel, a plausible exit strategy could involve creating a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, ensuring that Hezbollah’s ability to launch attacks on Israeli territory is severely diminished. Additionally, international pressure, especially from Western allies, should be leveraged against Iran to cut off the financial and military support that Hezbollah relies on.

Moreover, as Rich Lowry notes, Hezbollah’s own actions could lead to its demise. Lebanon is already on the verge of economic collapse, and another destructive war with Israel would only exacerbate the suffering of its people. By continuing to support Hezbollah, Lebanon risks further alienating itself from the international community. Diplomacy should aim to isolate Hezbollah politically within Lebanon, while maintaining military pressure to neutralize its immediate threat.

Conclusion

Israel’s fight against Hezbollah is not just a military campaign; it is a defense of its very existence against forces that seek its destruction. The calls for a ceasefire and for Israel to halt its defensive measures ignore the reality on the ground: Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations fueled by Iranian aggression, and they will not stop until Israel is weakened or destroyed.

As Christians, we should stand firmly with Israel. Israel’s struggle for survival is not just a political or military issue—it is a matter of defending the only Jewish state in the world, a beacon of freedom and democracy in a hostile region.